OPEN LETTERS. 
The nomenclature question: theoretical objections to a stable 
nclature. 
In the August issue of the Gazetre Dr. B. L. Robinson by a skill- 
ful argument endeavors to demonstrate a certain alleged weakness in 
; : o ca Ow 
wm 
a 
° 
S, 
re 
ee 
S: 
=) 
n 
as more than once insisted, deal with actual 
he m 
to the principle uestion, 
for he still occupies his original position of citing only suppositious 
cases. The validity of this objection, it must be pointed out again, 
ests not on what might happen but on what has happened. The Bo- 
which the principle has been applied, and if it contains any cases ap- 
proaching in absurdity those Dr. Robinson has held up as bug-bears, 
I do not know of them. : 
I accept with pleasure Dr. Robinson’s explanation of his reference 
to the representative character ot the Madis lage of bot 
ists, and in my turn I must explain that my interpretation of his re- 
marks on that topic was due to the fact that the alternative explana- 
tion, the one he now presents, seemed impossible of maintenance. 
formally adopted by the Botanical Club. e ittee was “4 
instructed to prepare a list in accordance wi e principles, an 
his they have do or making the list itself “official” by some 
primarily, and it may perhaps be said exclusively, by its conformity to 
principle. __ Any errors it contains cannot be made correct by a mere 
vote, nor, if an error is demonstrated, can one be expected to go on 
it 
repeatin 
Probably the greatest objections that can be urged against the As- 
sociation principles of n 
forward relative to this very rejection of homonyms. These objec 
tions Dr. R 
be 
surely no one, with a view to stability, can oppose the rejection of : 
Juncus megacephalus of Wood, 1865. The latter name being replace 
[428] 
